11 November 2002
Horse power is blamed for fatalities
![[Cartoon] Horse and carriage](/articles/images/021111Calming.jpg)
Surprisingly, it is possible to exaggerate the effects of cars and other modern vehicles on road accident fatalities.
Of course, 3443 road deaths last year is a figure that is roughly 3443 higher than anyone in their right mind would want. Sadly, it is also higher than the year before; so much for the inundation of magic speed cameras.
But it is, I am told, a long way below the number of deaths occurring as a result of infections contracted in hospitals. Perhaps we should introduce speed cameras into hospital wards.
It also apparently compares quite favourably with the figure of transport deaths for London in 1840. Since I was not there, I have to rely on hearsay for this, but I am reliably informed that it was in the region of 1000.
There was also a huge transport-connected pollution problem at about that time, with about 50 tons of horse manure a day being removed from the city’s streets, and clouds of flies contributing to global warming, I wouldn’t wonder.
Detailed research by this page has revealed that there was for a short time an organisation in existence called Transport 1850, backed by the Fewer Horses Initiative, which tried to persuade the government to introduce traffic calming measures like trough reduction, a high tax on hay, road humps (called cobbles at the time) and taking drivers out and flogging them.
The group tried to promulgate its hatred for horses by inundating editors with lengthy letters and trying to prevent anyone else from putting a different point of view.
But it did not command public support, except in Suffolk, and eventually collapsed after failing to convince the prime minister that “cars could be worse than horses”.
Some scholars have cast doubt on the existence of Transport 1850, saying it is a “figment of a reactionary journalist’s demented imagination”. They could be right, I suppose.
Same sentence for golf and bogey town
Great Yarmouth is a bit of a bogey town for many readers. I could never work out why, but distinguished local historian Bruce Robinson may have stumbled on the reason.
He tells me that the golf term “bogey” was invented there.
In recent times golf and Yarmouth rarely appear in the same sentence, except with the qualifying words “crazy” or “Volkswagen”. But apparently, back in 1890, two gentlemen were playing proper golf in the town when one of them, a Major Wellman, remarked that his near-invincible opponent was a regular bogey-man (after a popular song of the time).
The opponent was Dr Thomas Browne, respected secretary of the Great Yarmouth Golf Club – which may explain why the term caught on, coming to mean someone who could score the ground score at every hole.
According to Mr Robinson, “the Americans began to use ‘bogey’ for one over par in 1898.
“Later, the British lowered their bogies by one stroke a hole, and kept the term; the Americans began to use the word ‘par’, keeping the British word ‘bogey’ to mean one stroke more than par.”
Fascinating stuff, and strange too. Given that it took place in Yarmouth, I would have thought the explanation would have been much simpler.
Almost exactly what they meant
Some journalists like to examine everything people say so that they can pounce on inaccuracies or self-revelations and make fun of them.
Naturally, I am not like that, which is why I will hardly mention the item I spotted in a magazine recently: “Everybody is welcome to this private invitation party.”
Exactly how welcome is a little unclear, as is the sign on a bus shelter at Norwich rail station which reveals that the X31 comes every two hours and the X52 “broadly two-hourly”. I am still not sure which one to go for. I may take the narrow view.
But both of these would be passed over by the connoisseur in favour of the reassurance stemming from a Shell UK retail director who responded to criticism of his company inserting mobile phone masts into its forecourt price signs.
He said: “We fully recognise the public’s concerns and we are working proactively with the phone companies to ensure ongoing transparency.”
Normally this sort of rubbish is translated into English for the benefit of the newspaper reader, but occasionally it’s worth hearing the original.
Maybe he’s angling for a job with 24seven. Proactively, of course. In an ongoing sort of way. Transparently speaking.
Pondhenge pilots private targets
Shock news from north Norfolk, where the recently created Pondhenge Parish Council has been selected to pilot some of the more advanced ideas of the Government in its fairly secret campaign to control our lives completely.
Pondhenge residents will in future be required to set targets for getting up in the morning and going to bed at night, as well as drawing up policies for breakfast, shopping, lunch and supper. They will also need to reach certain levels of efficiency in breathing.
A number of legendary Norfolk figures are protesting about this alleged infringement of liberty, including Henry (Fred) “Shrimp” Houseago, 103, and Len “Kissme” Hardy of Hindolveston.
“We don’t hold out much hope,” said the group’s scientific adviser, Professor V A R Scheinlich. “The Government has a record of never listening to common sense. Our only hope is that the Prime Minister will admit he’s failed and resign.”
The Pondhenge goose was unavailable for comment, but several environmental groups said they were in favour, because people should do as they are told.
Is council being wise about its camels?
As part of its extremely pre-Christmas events this year, Norwich City Council has gone to great lengths to excite its citizens by arranging for three camels and three wise men to accompany Father Christmas on his premature arrival this week.
Leaving aside the questionable theology, I was amazed to hear that the council had been able to lay its hands on three wise men.
But the camel question is almost as interesting. Presumably it is something to do with road humps or other traffic calming, but isn’t there a city diktat banning circuses containing animals? In which case, how is the use of camels on Santa duty different from camels in a circus? Both perform unnaturally.
Or maybe these are not real camels, but cardboard cut-outs. I would advise readers to watch closely.